Conflict Theory

Conflict theory has both modern and classical roots; most recently, it developed in the late twentieth century in response structural functionalism. It is also, however, defined by the work of Karl Marx, a nineteenth-century philosopher and revolutionary. Conflict theories — which emphasize class struggle and change — are often pitted against consensus theories, which emphasize social stability and shared norms. The following will summarize Talcott Parsons' consensus theory known as structural functionalism, and the conflict theories of Ralf Dahrendorf and Randall Collins. The work of Karl Marx will be introduced as well. Even though consensus and conflict theories are often presented as opposing viewpoints, many theorists believe they are complementary. Some even suggest they should be integrated into a single theory. These viewpoints will be discussed as well.

Keywords Alienation; Authority; Capitalism; Collins, Randall; Class Conflict; Consensus Theory; Dahrendorf, Ralf; Dialectic; Marx, Karl; Social Class; Social Roles; Socialization; Stratification; Structural Functionalism

Conflict Theory

Overview

How do societies evolve and change? What role does conflict play in social organizations? Is conflict inherently bad? Is inequality a necessary part of any society? These are just a few of the questions that sociologists — and sociologists who describe themselves as conflict theorists, in particular — have attempted to answer. Like the field of sociology in general, conflict theory has both modern and classical roots. Most recently, conflict theory evolved in the late twentieth century in response to the perceived limitations of structural functionalism, the dominant sociological theory in post–World War II America. Yet, the foundation of conflict theory rests largely upon the work of Karl Marx, a nineteenth-century philosopher and revolutionary.

Before investigating either the classical or modern roots of conflict theory, however, it's worthwhile to place conflict theory — and its counterpart, structural functionalism — in a broader context. According to Ritzer and Goodman (2004), conflict theory and structural functionalism are part of a larger, ongoing debate between consensus theorists and conflict theorists. In general, consensus theorists emphasize the stability of society. Shared norms, values, and laws all contribute to social order; change occurs slowly and in a peaceful and orderly fashion. In contrast, conflict theorists view society through the lens of group domination — social order is a temporary state that results from the dominance of one group over another. Change is both inevitable and good, occurring when subordinate groups overthrow dominant groups. Furthermore, change happens quickly, and often in a disorderly and forceful fashion.

Some argue that the overarching labels 'consensus' and 'conflict' are artificial, masking important similarities among theorists and overlooking the ways in which they complement one another. For now, the terms provide a good starting point for understanding fundamental differences in sociological theories.

Structural Functionalism

As one of the dominant paradigms in sociological thought, structural functionalism is an important theory in its own right. Many mid-twentieth century sociologists even described structural functionalism as "synonymous with sociology." And if structural functionalism was synonymous with sociology, then Talcott Parsons, an economist by training, become nearly synonymous with structural functionalism.

According to Parsons, societies are best understood as social systems consisting of complementary parts, such as social roles, institutions, and organizations. The various parts form a social structure or normative framework, which define the expectations and obligations of the people living within the society. Importantly, however, Parson's primary unit of analysis was not the individual person, but rather the social role they occupied. People occupy multiple roles at once — teacher, sister, friend, citizen — each role defined by standards of appropriate behavior in particular social situations. According to structural functionalists, the stability and continuity of a society are primarily achieved through socialization, the process whereby infants and children learn what is expected of them, and shared norms are passed from one generation to the next.

Functions of Social Systems

In addition to structure, Parsons was also interested in the functions, or needs, of social systems. He identified adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and latency as the four functional needs of every society. Structures such as neighborhoods and families help ensure solidarity and cohesion, addressing the functional need of integration. Educational structures help ensure that future resources will be available to a society, addressing its latency needs. Although Parsons realized needs could only be met through social action, he "failed to analyze action as thoroughly as structure and function" (Fulcher & Scott, 2003, p. 51). Sensitive to such criticisms, Parsons' later work attempted to incorporate a theory of societal evolution to explain social change.

Social Roles

While Talcott Parsons' name is most often associated with structural functionalism, it is the work of Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore (1945) that is "perhaps the best-known single piece of work in structural-functionalism theory" (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004, p. 93). Like Parsons, Davis and Moore also focused on social roles as opposed to the individuals within those roles. However, they placed much more emphasis on the relationship of roles to one another, arguing that some carry more prestige, power, and reward than others. Their work "made it clear that they regarded social stratification as both universal and necessary. They argued that no society is ever unstratified, or totally classless. Stratification is, in their view, a functional necessity" (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004, p. 93).

As mentioned earlier, conflict theory developed in response to the perceived limitations of structural functionalism. What then were the criticisms of structural functionalism? Ritzer (2004) provides a comprehensive overview of the many charges made against structural-functionalists:

• Structural functionalism is ahistorical; it is incapable of explaining how societies evolved into their present- day forms;

• Structural functionalism does not adequately address the question of social change; if all elements of a system work together harmoniously, as structural functionalists claim, how can the theory account for social change?

• Structural functionalism is conservative in its emphasis on shared norms and values and the maintenance of the status quo, especially in terms of status, power, and privilege;

• Structural functionalism is abstract and difficult to adequately test and measure;

• Structural functionalists overemphasize harmonious relationships, either ignoring conflict altogether or viewing it as necessarily destructive;

• Structural functionalism suffers logical errors. Some of its arguments are tautological — employing circular reasoning — while others are teleological. Defining the whole as the sum of its parts, and defining parts in relation to the whole — as structural functionalists define society — is an example of a tautological error. Assuming the end goals guide behavior — for example, that marriage is a predetermined result of societies' need for procreation — is what Turner and Maryanski (1979, as cited in Ritzer & Goodman, 2004) call "illegitimate teleology."

As a result of these criticisms, the prominence of structural functionalism has declined considerably since the 1970s, so much so that one of its founders now considers it "an embarrassment in contemporary theoretical sociology" (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004, p. 92).

Conflict Theorists

Ralf Dahrendorf

Dahrendorf, writing in the mid-twentieth century, recognized that all social systems have elements of both conflict and consensus. He believed theory should account for both, but not necessarily within a single theory. Thus, for conflict theorists like Dahrendorf, structural-functionalist theories were not wrong in any fundamental sense, as much as they were necessarily incomplete.

Dahrendorf's theory of conflict rests upon the notion of authority. "In all organizations, he argues, there is an unequal distribution of authority that creates a division between the dominant and the subordinate, between those who rule and those who are ruled" (Fulcher & Scott, 2003, p. 58). Like structural functionalists, Dahrendorf emphasized social positions rather than the people occupying those positions. In other words, authority is inherent in the social positions themselves, and is not a result of the psychological or behavioral characteristics of the individuals who occupy them. Rather than emphasizing the normative expectations of social roles, however, Dahrendorf focused on the interests of particular groups of people. Subordinate groups, for example, have an interest in shifting the distribution of authority to their own advantage. People with common interests form social classes or interest groups. The various groups come into conflict with one another, thus bringing about social change. For Dahrendorf, change in society is always imminent. "A conflict of interest within any association is at least latent at all times, which means the legitimacy of authority is always precarious" (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004, p. 122).

Like consensus theories, Dahrendorf's conflict theory was criticized by those who believe conflict and consensus can and should be integrated into a single theory. Such critics argue, "Sociology must be able to explain order as well as conflict, structure as well as change" (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004, p. 124). In addition, critics believe Dahrendorf's theory is vague and underdeveloped, less complete in relation to its structural-functionalist counterpart. Others feel the theory is too macroscopic, offering little insight into the everyday interaction of individuals and groups. Finally, although Dahrendorf hoped to base his theory on Marx and Weber, he was ultimately unsuccessful. In the end, his theory may have more in common with structural functionalism than with Marx. Ritzer and Goodman (2004) write, "The basic problem with conflict theory is that it never succeeded in divorcing itself sufficiently from its structural-functional roots. It was more a kind of structural functionalism turned on its head than a truly critical theory of society" (p. 119).

Randall Collins

Like Dahrendorf, Collins also attempted to use Marx and Weber as a foundation in developing his own conflict theory. What he wanted to avoid, however, were the ideological overtones he felt characterized both Marxism and structural functionalism. For Collins, conflict was neither good nor bad, it was simply a "central process in social life" (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004, p. 125). In addition, Collins recognized that conflict permeated many different aspects of social life, beyond just economics. In contrast, Marx was often criticized for focusing too heavily on conflict in the economic domain, even though the criticism was largely unfounded. Finally, Collins was critical of theories that were too macro in focus; he focused on actors in relation to structures, viewing "social structures as inseparable from the actors who construct them and whose interaction patterns are their essence" (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004, p. 125).

Whereas Dahrendorf's theory rested on authority, Collins chose social stratification as the organizational element of his theory. For Collins, social stratification permeated all aspects of life — family, gender relations, politics, economics, and business — and could be reduced to small-scale interactions between people. Collins' theory begins with a basic set of assumptions:

• People are self-interested;

• People use resources to maximize their interest; and

• People are inherently social but conflict-prone.

Furthermore, he believed people construct their own subjective experience, but that other people sometimes have the power to affect or control that experience. In particular, people who oppose one another often try to control each other, resulting in interpersonal conflict. Collins recognized, however, that people do not always act rationally; conflict has an emotional element as well. He also emphasized that those in power not only control material resources, but also impose belief systems. Finally, Collins believed in the scientific verification of theory; he developed numerous hypotheses about the relationship between conflict and other aspects of social life that he hoped to test empirically.

Although Collins advanced the study of conflict by grounding it in the observation of everyday interactions, his theory was most often criticized for not being what he espoused it to be — mainly, an extension of Marxist thought. As Ritzer and Goodman (2004) explains, "In sum, Collins is, like Dahrendorf, not a true exponent of Marxian conflict theory…Although Collins used Marx as a starting point, Weber, Durkheim, and particularly ethnomethodology were much more important influences on his work" (p. 128).

Further Insights

The Influence of Karl Marx

Much of the early work of Karl Marx was politically charged and ideological, causing many in the academic communities to shun his work. In turn, Marx shunned many academics — sociologists in particular — for failing to fully address the role of conflict in social life. Over time, however, Marxist thought has re-emerged as a viable sociological theory. Salmon (1945) even suggests, "much of the development of sociological theory can be understood as a debate with the ghost of Karl Marx" (as cited in Farganis, 2000, p. 5). Thus, it is to Karl Marx and his work that we now turn. The following summary of Marx's work draws from Ritzer and Goodman (2004), Farganis (2000), and Ritzer (2008).

It is important to understand the objective of Karl Marx's work. In comparing Marx and Weber, Farganis (2000) writes, "For Marx, the object of social analysis was to change the world; for Weber it is enough to try to understand it" (p. 11). Similarity, Ritzer (2008) describes Marx's main interest as "the historical basis of inequality…under capitalism" (p. 44). But even more than that, he wanted to figure out "how to change it" (p. 44). Some might ask why Marx's work is still relevant; he predicted the fall of capitalism, and the subsequent rise of communism, neither of which have proven true. Nevertheless, Marx's analysis of capitalism is still valuable; with the rise of capitalism worldwide, some suggest "his theories are more relevant now than ever" (McLennan, as cited in Ritzer, 2008, p. 45).

Theory Building

Equally as important as Marx's analysis of capitalism is his approach to theory building in general. Marx was heavily influenced by the German philosopher Georg Hegel, who used the dialectic — the idea that contradiction is a necessary part of social life — to understand change. Rather than relying upon simple, linear, cause-and-effect thinking to explain social phenomenon, Hegel and Marx emphasized reciprocal relationships. "To the dialectician, one factor may have an effect on another, but it is just as likely that the latter will have a simultaneous effect on the former" (Ritzer, 2008, p. 46). Similarly, Marx believed in uncovering relationships between past, present, and future. In particular, he believed it was necessary to look at history in order to gain a full understanding of the present. The relationship between past and present, however, was never predetermined or inevitable; rather, change could only come about through the choices and actions of people. Thus, Marx was as interested in actors as he was social structures.

Work & Worker Alienation

The relationship between people and work is central to Marx's theory. According to Marx, labor gives people the opportunity to express themselves creatively and purposefully. Work is not an activity engaged in simply for survival and subsistence, but rather for "the enhancement of human life" (Farganis, 2000, p. 28). Under capitalism, however, Marx believed the fundamental relationship between labor and human nature was disrupted, resulting in our alienation. For Marx, alienation occurs in multiple ways. People are alienated from the productive process itself, because workers must produce according to the instructions of the capitalists, rather than according to their own ideas and needs. Secondly, people are alienated from the product; the products belong to the capitalists, rather than those who produce it. Workers are also alienated from one another, due to the competitive nature inherent in the capitalist system. And finally, workers are alienated from their own human potential. "Instead of being a source of transformation and fulfillment of our human nature, the workplace is where we feel least human, least ourselves" (Ritzer, 2008, p. 55).

How did this unnatural arrangement between worker and product give way to conflict and change? The beginning sentence of Marx's The Manifest of the Communist Party might provide the answer. He wrote, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle" (as cited in Farganis, 2000, p. 31). For Marx, class struggles are an inherent part of social life, important because they are the catalyst for change. All social change, he argued, was "the outcome of inevitable conflicts between irreconcilable interests" (Farganis, 2000, p. 29). The 'irreconcilable interests' between workers and capitalists are, Marx believed, inherent in the capitalist system; capitalists pay workers less than they deserve, creating a surplus value. Capitalism depends on the expansion of this surplus value, and therefore, the increasing exploitation of the worker (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004). After a period of "unrelieved suffering, [the working class] begins to see itself as a class, and gradually mobilizes" against the capitalists (Farganis, 2000, p. 29). Marx thought the mobilization of the working class would ultimately lead to a socialist society.

While this summary serves as a brief introduction to Marxist thought, it doesn't begin to capture the more recent theoretical work that his ideas have spawned. In the past few decades alone, the rebirth of Marxism has resulted in the development of numerous sub-theories, including:

• Hegelian Marxism,

• Critical theory,

• Neo-Marxist economic theory,

• Neo-Marxist spatial analysis, and

• Post-Marxist theory, to name a few (Ritzer, 2008).

Marx's influence may not have been immediate, but it is immense.

Viewpoints

In most introductory sociology textbooks, conflict theory is presented as it was above — in terms of its modern roots as an outgrowth of structural functionalism, and in terms of its historical roots in the work of Karl Marx. Different texts spend varying amounts of time discussing each. Wood (1983) argues that this organization and presentation of conflict theory does an injustice to students learning sociology: "conflict theory, as it appears in sociology texts, represents bad sociology and bad pedagogy. There is no such thing as conflict theory. We provide our students with misinformation when we say that there is" (p.464, 471). Wood argues that instead of subsuming Marxist theory under what he believes is a misleading label, texts should present Marxism directly. After all, the conflict theorists typically presented in texts, he argues, are not the theorists who have inspired recent scholarship. Nor does their collective work constitute a true 'paradigm' within sociology. Finally, such an organization misrepresents the historical development of the field; separating Marx from conflict theory is "necessary for an accurate understanding of the historical development of sociology itself" (Wood, 1983, p. 481). Recent texts have devoted more space to Marx, as renewed interest in his work has grown; conflict theory, however, is still presented as a viable sociological paradigm.

Conflict vs. Consensus

Others have criticized the presentation of conflict theory as a polar opposite of structural functionalism, or more broadly, consensus theory. Some of these criticisms are founded on the belief that no single theory can explain all social aspects of social life, nor should they attempt to do so. "Leading theorists of the sociological tradition have attempted, in their different ways, to understand the modern world. None has given a full and complete picture. The most powerful theories are those that have emphasized a particular aspect of the social world and have concentrated their attention on understanding that aspect (Fulcher & Scott, 2003, p. 21). Thus, theories that attempt to explain consensus are no more right or wrong than those that attempt to explain conflict; both are real world phenomenon worthy of study.

In a slightly different vein, others argue that the two theories should and can be integrated with one another. Bailey (1997) writes "The systems and conflict approaches are often viewed as incompatible, if not contradictory. [But] rather than being contradictory, consensus and conflict are in fact complementary in some ways. Further, they can coexist within a system. Every system has, at a given time, some level of both consensus and conflict" (p. 425). Theories that attempt to explain social systems, therefore, should include elements of both. Jacob (1981) echoes this sentiment, arguing for the eradication of simplistic dichotomies when approaching complex subjects such as social and educational inequality. Jacob (1981) encourages synthesis across theories in order to avoid the impasse that sometimes results from 'black and white' thinking.

One of the similarities between conflict and consensus theories is the level of analysis at which they attempt to understand the world. More specifically, "they are both macro-level theories focally concerned with large-scale social structures and social institutions" (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004, p. 92). Rossel and Collins (2002) however, believe conflict theory should be grounded in the everyday interactions of people. In other words, theory should be grounded in observation and empirical evidence because "human experiences and actions take place in microsocial reality" (Rossel & Collins, 2002, p. 509). This does not mean, however, that macro-level theories are groundless. Rossel and Collins (2002) conclude, "Macrosociology is [not] an impossible endeavor. It is a necessary part of sociological research, and it has produced some good results in the form of comparative historical sociology. However, its results have to founded in microsociological concepts, which means that macrosociological notions and structures have to be translated, as far as possible, into their microsociological elements" (p. 510).

Whether contradictory or complementary, micro or macro, it's important to understand that conflict theory and consensus theory are just two elements of a larger theoretical landscape in sociology. Symbolic interaction and exchange theory, as well as theorists such as George Herbert Mead, W. E. B. Du Bois, and Karl Mannheim, helped define the historical landscape. More recently, feminist theory, critical theory, postcolonial theory, and postmodernism, have helped point the field in new directions.

Terms & Concepts

Alienation: According to Marx, capitalism disrupts the natural relationship between people and their work. Rather than giving people an opportunity to express their creativity and needs, capitalism alienates people. Specifically, capitalism alienates workers from the process of creating, from the end product, from one another, and from their own potential.

Authority: Dahrendorf's theory of conflict rests upon the notion of authority. Authority is distributed unequally across social positions, he argues. It is inherent in the positions themselves, rather than the individuals who occupy them. Subordinate groups have an interest in redistributing authority, thereby creating conflict and change.

Capitalism: According to Marx, capitalism is an economic system that depends on the exploitation of workers. Capitalists pay workers less than their worth, and reinvest the surplus value in order to expand the capitalist system. Those who are exploited eventually mobilize as a class, and conflict ensues. Marx believed communism would usurp capitalism.

Class Conflict: Marx's views history as a series of class struggles. Class conflict is an inherent part of all social systems, he argues, whether they are feudalist societies or capitalist societies. It is the conflict between opposing groups which brings about change.

Consensus: Conflict theories are often presented as the opposite of consensus theories. Consensus theories such as structural functionalism focus on social stability and shared values and norms. Consensus theorists often view conflict as inherently bad; they emphasize the continuity of social systems over time, rather than social change.

Dialectic: Marx was heavily influenced by the German philosopher Hegel, who used the dialectic — the idea that contradiction is a necessary part of social life — to understand change. Rather than relying upon simple, linear, cause-and-effect thinking to explain social phenomenon, Hegel and Marx emphasized reciprocal relationships.

Social Roles: For structural functionalists, societies are comprised of social roles. Roles are defined by the shared expectations and norms of the society, rather than the individual people who occupy them. Members of any social group are likely to inhabit multiple social roles at any one time.

Socialization: For structural functionalists, social continuity and stability is achieved through a process known as socialization. Through the process of socialization, younger members of a group are taught its values and norms so that they are prepared as adults to occupy its social roles.

Stratification: Some structural functionalists think stratification is an inherent outcome of social systems and structures. The division of society into social classes, they believe, is inherent, universal, and functional. Marx disagreed, and believed that social systems that bred inequality should be eradicated.

Structural Functionalism: In mid-twentieth-century sociology, structural functionalism was the dominant sociology theory. Also known as a consensus theory, structural functionalism defines social systems in terms of their complementary parts and emphasizes social stability and shared norms. Talcott Parsons helped define structural functionalism.

Bibliography

Bailey, K. D. (1997). System and conflict: Toward a symbiotic reconciliation. Quality and Quantity, 31, 425–442. Retrieved March 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier

Farganis, J. (2000). Readings in social theory: The classic tradition to post-modernism . New York: McGraw Hill.

Fulcher, J., & Scott, J. (2003). Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Irmak, F., & Güçlü, ?. (2012). Revisiting Marx and Dahrendorf on social exclusion and inclusion. International Journal of Human Sciences, 9, 1499–1509. Retrieved October 28, 2013 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete

Jacob, J. (1981). Theories of social and educational inequality: From dichotomy to typology. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 2, 71–89. Retrieved March 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete

Ritzer, G. (2008). Sociological theory . New York: McGraw Hill.

Ritzer, G., & Goodman, D. J. (2004). Modern sociological theory. New York: McGraw Hill.

Rossel, J., & Collins, R. (2002). Conflict theory and interaction rituals. In J. H. Turner (ed.), Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 509–531). New York: Plenum Publishers. Retrieved March 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete

Wood, R. E. (1983). Conflict theory as pedagogy: A critique from the left. Teaching Sociology, 10, 463–485. Retrieved March 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete

Suggested Reading

Aho, J. (2013). Randall Collins: Violence: A micro-sociological theory. Human Studies, 36, 149–151. Retrieved October 28, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text

Kimmel, M. S. (2007). Classical sociological theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lemert, C. (2007). Thinking the unthinkable: The riddles of classical social theories. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Lepsius, M. (2010). In remembrance of the sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf. Max Weber Studies, 10, 23–27. Retrieved October 28, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text

Swingewood, A. (2000). A short history of sociological thought. New York: St. Martin's Press.